US says Saudi prince approved Khashoggi killing
bbc.com
bbc.com
Almost six years later, Mr Obama has approved military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and now Syria.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) estimates the Obama administration has launched more than 390 drone strikes in five years across Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia – eight times as many approved during the entire Bush Presidency.
Obama making decisions on his own doesn't have anything to do with middle east nation's interest in US approval for their own actions.
I'm addressing what those middle east nations choose to do and who they consult with, get 'approval' from / etc.
What? That's exactly what it means.
The simple fact is we have very little justification to criticize the actions of other nations when we cannot even go an Administration without attacking another nation.
2) Why is the US not allowed to "attack[] another nation"? esp given it was a response to attacks on American/coalition personnel?
As alliances shift in the middle east it's not surprising that Israel would be involved. Relations / tensions are pretty wild in the Middle East. I think 'unlikely' alliances are almost inevitable, and maybe not as unlikely as we think. There area lot of strangely conflicting incentives out there.
I think whatever horse trading happened behind the scenes was likely more valuable than PR.
Israel's usually pretty opaque military and other actions allow for a lot of unexpected partnerships.
The Abraham accords are the legacy of the Trump admin and I think it’s a very good one.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/27/politics/us-pauses-saudi-uae-...
"Ahead of the report’s release, Mr. Biden spoke to King Salman of Saudi Arabia. Although the official White House description of the call did not say that the two men discussed the report, other officials said the purpose of the discussion was for Mr. Biden to explain why he was releasing the findings and outline the administration’s next steps. The administration has made clear that Mr. Biden will speak only to King Salman, his counterpart as head of state, and will not speak directly to the crown prince.
Whether the new administration’s attempt to bypass the 35-year-old crown prince and deal only with his 84-year-old and often ailing father will succeed remains to be seen."
Where is the outrage? All the social media platforms are silent.
Trump's opponents didn't seem to be suggesting noticeably better strategies to deal with the virus and Democrat led states don't seem to be handling the virus much better than Republican led states [2].
I prefer to focus on more concrete and demonstrable failures but I think in a few years when we can really parse this data we'll find that Trump's actions directly led to hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths... but, I'm not certain.
The biggest failure I think we pretty clearly made in handling the virus was not quickly building up some nationalized vaccine production facilities. If ever there was a time for some good old state capitalism it was this pandemic and a few hundred million invested in setting up facilities we know we'll eventually need would have paid off handsomely.
Gibraltar
San Marino
Belgium
Czechia
Slovenia
UK
Italy
Portugal
Montenegro
And, do you really think that Belgium has all of whatever bad characteristics you like to apply to the US government? Or is it maybe more a consequence of being a small and densely populated area that people travel a lot to and from, like NYC? It's not as simple as good policy response meaning lower deaths.
The administration was overtly spreading misinformation and speaking against straight up correct medical advice. They made overt statements in national media that assistance vs the virus would be treated as a quid pro quo for political loyalty. They threatened governors that criticized the administration with denial of federal resources in a (&()^) epidemic. You cannot whitewash the blood on their hands.
It was craven politics born of an early idea that the virus would be worst in left leaning coastal cities, and hence would help Trump for re-election. Obviously a virus doesn't give a crap about political parties, so it didn't go that way.
It's entirely reasonable to believe that the number of covid deaths in the US would have been an order of magnitude less with more sober decision making.
There are many signs of Biden administration going back to the deal. They are both dancing around it but there's definitely been a policy change regarding Iran.
For stability of the region, commerce, peace and moderate forces in all parties, it was a good deal.
It wouldn't have resolved all the issues the world has with Iran, but the idea of having a "deal" in place that resolves all issues is childish.
Eg can the US have a "deal" with Saudi in place to resolve all the regional and human rights issues with them? Of course not. But those who argue against the JCPOA claim the US could've had a "deal" with Iran that resolved all issues.
It would've been used to rebuild some trust between both nations and help resolving other issues in long term.
Although right now the deal is hanging by a thread, I still think its possible that in long term it will be considered a major victory for all parties involved.
The fact that the hardliners couldn't kill it off despite years of effort (while being in power) may be later judged as a strength of it.
That's better than nothing I guess. But it's not the "we're back, let's make this work" announcement I'd hoped for.
I'm very supportive of engagement with Iran. In a generation they'll be the main power in the ME. Its time to get on board or be left behind I think. The Saudis are yesterday's news.
Both sides are dancing but there have been very positive signs. I expect the parties to return to deal in 2-5 months.
I guess the Turkish state reports were official enough.
Could you elaborate in what ways money influenced Turkey to speak out about it, where others didn't? I'm intensely curious about this.
-US($8bn of arms sale) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/trump-puts-saudi-arms-sal...
- FR (€1.4 billion) https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/10/france-should-halt-arms-...
Jamal Khashoggi: EU divided over arms sales to Saudi Arabia six months after murder: https://www.euronews.com/2019/04/02/jamal-khashoggi-eu-divid...
I've had more than one VC tell me they couldn't guarantee that there was no Saudi money in their fund, even though they didn't have any direct KSA LPs.
But I do agree that UBI proponents have to come up with an argument against the "pay people just enough to do drugs and play videogames all day" example. Most of the population is not made of highly motivated self-starters, despite what every job posting looks for.
I support UBI and see no problem with people "slacking" all day. Like you say, society is not made up of highly motivated self-starters. Why force those people to work when automation will make it completely unnecessary?
Perhaps it will. It hasn't made it completely unnecessary yet, though. Somebody who can't work? I'm all for helping them. Someone who won't? Let them mooch off of someone that is not the taxpayer.
No one consented to be born into a system where they are enslaved by capital holders. Consider that an artifact of bootstrapping humanity through the industrial revolution.
I do not take automation as a given, because it is not yet able to produce all that we want. You're living in a dream world. That dream may one day be a reality; that day is not yet here.
> No one consented to be born into a system where they are enslaved by capital holders.
I did not consent to be taxed to pay for those who choose not to work, either.
> I did not consent to be taxed to pay for those who choose not to work, either.
If you support UBI you will also have the option to not work (and therefore pay no taxes). Really though unless you’re a billionaire I don’t think you have anything to worry about.
There’s nothing more “destructive” then spending your life working to survive. It’s literally wasting the most valuable thing you have. Putting those guys back in a coal mine so we don’t have to see them is not a solution.
If someone is happy enough with basic food and shelter, no luxuries, is it a problem if they just sit around? isn't this better than fostering a dangerous criminal with disdain for society, thus endangering everyone in the local community?
if someone wants more (e.g. a Gaming PC) then they will have to work for it. Food and shelters should be considered human rights by virtue of existence. We will flourish more as a species if we move away from that hyper-individualist view from which we see the world, to a kinder, community-oriented view.
Let's not be assholes. If I get 100k a year, losing 1000k for another person is no problem, assuming I'm not a greedy bastard with a hardon for cash.
Why do you believe this?
Source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/22/obama-drones-trump-kill...
> Obama-era drone killings
The drone killings are not good, but in no way equivalent to the ills of SA. The murder of a journalist isn't the same as the murder of a wanted violent criminal.
In any case: when has the US targeted civilians? And where does the "right to X" come from?
The more they are able to diversify their profits away from oil towards renewables (or other assets), the faster we all can transition to cleaner tech.
As Jordan Peterson expressed it quite well, the problem with United Nations is that they have too many issues to solve instead of figuring out what action has the highest ROI and focusing efforts there.
Another issue is that already people in less corrupt countries prefer not to have babies, which means that the workforce in corrupt countries is growing much faster. US has to be very smart if it wants to stay relevant.
>A new State Department policy named the Khashoggi Ban will also be unveiled today, which will allow State to restrict and revoke visas to any individual believed to be involved in targeting/harassing/surveilling dissidents and journalists extraterritorially.
>Then White House chose not to penalize the crown prince directly despite intel report concluding he approved the operation that led to Khashoggi's murder. One senior administration official said that to do so would put the U.S. in an extremely “hostile” position wrt KSA.
>"The aim is recalibration, not a rupture, because of the important interests that we do share" with Saudi Arabia, the senior admin official said. U.S. officials and departments will continue to deal with MBS at the appropriate levels.
>More from SAO on why MBS was not sanctioned: "The United States as a matter of practice has not generally applied sanctions on the highest leadership of countries with whom the US has diplomatic relations. Nor even generally speaking on the leaders of countries with which 1/
>the US has no relations. And having looked at this extremely closely over the last 5 weeks, there was unanimous conclusion that there were other more effective means to dealing with these issues going forward."
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/13653707662047477...
UPD
https://www.state.gov/accountability-for-the-murder-of-jamal...
Make them the "new" Iran in terms of business dealings with America. All shares that Saudi Prince owns in America companies becomes owned by the Government and is auctioned off.
* US military action anywhere
* CIA kidnapping and torture of US and non-US nationals
* US sponsored regimes and regime changes around the world
That's a decent start.
The US and the world must decarbonize to remove the power from these feudal, vicious "drug dealers." The US wouldn't need to protect SA if most of NATO countries' energy could be had elsewhere. It would be essential to remove nukes and military arms from SA and Iran to ensure peace in the region.
I think there are other interests beyond oil also:
- MIC: weapon sales and US military budget justification
- Focal-point for US proxy conflict with global adversaries
- Monetize Iran - Saudi Arabia tensions; simultaneously stoking it and tempering it
Getting away from oil, normalizing relations with Iran, and bringing SA and Iran closer together would work against the above interests but would deescalate tensions and obviate a major pretext for regional imperial occupation.
I'd argue it is up to US intelligence and the current Administration to make these decisions, or at least that's how the system is designed - and I would agree that any systems needs to be selective in what information is public - radical political honesty works about as well as radical social honesty, just with even more terrible consequences.
That's not to say 'there aren't problems with this, the most pressing being how to trust the authorities involved, especially when they are essentially given the means to bury their crimes, and control the very information by which their actions may be (democratically) measured - but I guess these are the paradox of the modern, democratic mega-nation.
I seriously don't know why it makes the news now.
There were claims that they listened through his Apple Watch but this claim lacks any substance, they must have bugged the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul where the murder took place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_Septembe...
According to the Wikipedia page, I don't think he was an independent journalist. He had connections with the Saudi government and other organizations.
Quote: "After his second resignation, Khashoggi maintained ties with Saudi Arabian elites, including those in its intelligence apparatus. In 2015, he launched the satellite news channel Al-Arab, based in Bahrain outside Saudi Arabia, which does not allow independent news channels to operate within its borders. The news channel was backed by Saudi Arabian billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and partnered with U.S. financial news channel Bloomberg Television, it was also rumored to have received financial support from the King of Bahrain, Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa.[69] "
Quote: "In December 2018, The Washington Post revealed that Khashoggi's columns "at times" were "shaped" by an organization funded by Saudi Arabia's regional nemesis, Qatar, including by proposing his topics, giving him drafts, goading him, and giving him research."
I am not saying it is wrong to be a political dissident, but those should disqualifying you from being called as a "journalist", right?
I'd be surprised if a journalist DID'T have connections to government officials. For many (depending on what you cover) that's a big part of the job.
I feel like it might be a wide net cast to include him, but seems valid.
Still, worthwhile asking the question IMO.
> But does this make him a journalist?
I think you answered that yourself. As to the perceived quality, that's a different matter and is subjective.
Not that it makes killing him any better, of course, but it does add another layer of depth to the story.
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/411502-trump-has-e...
Video about half-way down... Trump said, paraphrased, "I talked with MBS and he told me very strongly that he didn't do it, so he's good. Move along, nothing to see here people."
I don't agree with Biden on everything, but sure is nice to have a POTUS who isn't trying to sweep the killing of journalists under the rug. Like... I sleep a bit better at night now.
This is almost more shameful than when we pretended that MBS wasn't involved.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/us/politics/biden-mbs-kha...
It's just that it was kept covered up by Trump.
So, what do we do about SA? refuse to buy oil from them, weakening the US global position and hope that causes less harm than the actions of SA itself?
Go to war with SA, payed for in dead American soldiers, and hope that the reputation of the US doesn't suffer as a result, esp as Americas enemies spin the even as another example of American Imperialism / justify their own invasions?
Lots of grey comments all over in this thread. Not a very balanced discussion...Or maybe balanced in how much everyone is downvoting one another?
The Turks had a wiretap in the murder room!
Not much to get upset about.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/us/politics/biden-mbs-kha...
Fortunately we're fracking now so as soon as we wrest control of the reins of power over our government from Middle Eastern lobbyists we can forget about all those stupid wars we're fighting. So, probably in about a century...
In the short term, obtaining energy independence is helped by no longer appeasing SA. When oil prices are higher, domestic production becomes profitable. That's if the current prices aren't just a result of the SA strategy of periodically flooding the market to bankrupt high-overhead producers.
As for your "we’ll see if there’s a grand strategy behind it", that strategy is obviously domestic production and renewables. Looking forwards instead of looking backwards.
Nevertheless, I want our country to alienate other countries whose heads of state order journalists strangled or murdered by any other means. I want to live in a society like that. I want that even if I know my American government is hardly free from guilt.
We have energy independence, and cutting off the pipeline and going green improves that. You know who isn’t energy independent? China. Why is China staking out the area around the Spratleys? Oil is a huge part of that.
I think real politik entails telling the Saudis no más and becoming pals with the Iranians instead. The Persians aren’t our enemies and they aren’t selling peoples organs out of death camps. If they become our homies we have a line from Iraq to India of people who will work with us and force the Chinese to secure a very long and mountainous border. Then if the Saudis don’t like it? Let them sell their oil to China and be on their squad - now China secures their own Oil source and that takes a shit ton of pressure off the Vietnamese and everyone else in the area, with the Iranians still having the Strait of Hormuz as insurance. Peace can be had.
Our biggest rival has triple our population and is rapidly catching up in capability - and any armchair historian knows that the Soviets overwhelmed the Nazis despite their sophistication.
(1) https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
Saying that you have enough production (with a negative million plus barrels a day) and then saying that peace needs to be made with Iran to protect supply from going to China seems like an extremely risky strategy with very little potential of cutting off China.
The Germans made a series of unsophisticated decisions in the east that cost them when Hilter started to assert direct control over the army. Not really comparible. The number of tanks do.
"Nice PR" is always going to be a side effect of any policy, depending on your viewpoint of course.
It seems Biden has a number of pages about his strategy, which seems heavily focused on renewables: https://joebiden.com/clean-energy/
This is an alternative path to energy independence which also helps with other goals such as reducing climate change impacts
What does this even mean? I highly doubt the arms deal will get canceled. That was arranged under Obama and Biden.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-admin...
If nothing material happens after acknowledging something bad happened, does it matter in any way? The net result is the same.
Regimes do bad things. They just don’t usually do it in the open like this case or North Korea (foreign airport).
Unless it’s a small banana republic that bends at the will of international pressure, not much will happen.
Right after they do something material about this I’m certain they will do something about the things China does.
Maybe they’ll do something about Venezuela too, right?
I’m sure we’ll just ignore the hundreds of government executed political prisoners in Venezuela and other places. Why not, it’s not even ever mentioned by the media.
Biden will lift the ruinous Venezuelan sanctions right after he lifts the ones on Russia I’m certain. Give him time.
It just feels as if something is missing from the discussion.
It was portrayed as "this is bad because they killed a journalist."
In reality it was "this is bad because this guy had lots of connections"
Journalists are killed by bad people every year, usually to very little fanfare.
Take your buyer's remorse if you haven't already.
P.S. Kids in cages! You'll say nothing.
The idea that he was 100% a noble crusading journalist is pure propaganda.
This whole story is artificially amplified. Has everyone woken up and suddenly learned what punishments in Saudi Arabia are like?
Take for instance Chelsea Manning - someone who made the US government look bad by leaking diplomatic cables. Torture, solitary confinement, all sorts of inhumane conditions. Is it that much of a stretch to see a monarchy like Saudi Arabia chopping up their guy for making them look bad? Not really. It's what you would expect in a place like that.
It's always been that way, and everyone has known about it. To pretend as if it's unexpected is quite insincere and reeks of some alternative agenda. The way Khashoggi is presented to the public as some kind of hero is really telling.
He could've been the worst journalist in the world. That's no excuse to butcher him.
My point remains. There are conspiracies about Russia feeding talking points to members of the US government and that those who are doing the bidding of Russia should be tried for treason.
This is not some fringe point of view you read on some imageboard on the internet, this is that has been airing on American news tv regularly over the past 4 years. You don't get banned on twitter for saying this, you don't get banned on Facebook for saying this. This is a very popular thing to say and believe in America.
The Saudis simply followed through with the same principle, and it's being presented as some kind of heinous outrage when it's essentially what's being proposed in the USA.
At best one could argue the method of killing, and if we're there my point is pretty much made. They followed their criminal justice system. They're doing a song and dance now because it got blown up.